Review: 'Star Trek Into Darkness'

What do you get when the most interesting character in your movie is the villain? Well, that's just the point. You get no clear focus on what's going on with the plot and characters that are sadly one-dimensional yet trying to be two-dimensional. At least the visuals are spectacular and the action is entertaining.

I know I would probably get a lot of negative responses from this, especially considering how my own name is referred constantly by my friends to a certain captain of this series, but I got to say it: I'm not a big fan of Star Trek. Mostly because I simply didn't grow up on it. That doesn't mean it's bad though. In fact, that's far from the reason. It is really fun with occasionally clever ideas that occur out of the blue. Or the stars, for that matter. I guess the problem I sort of have with the Star Trek universe as a whole is the, surprisingly, undeveloped characters who are strictly there to serve in the exciting missions that we as the viewers embark upon. Let's face it, the futuristic technologies and starship missions are the real stars of the franchise.

There was so much hype built up towards this movie, implying that this would be a groundbreaking achievement, story-wise and technically, by Star Trek standards. Unfortunately, When you get down to it, it's just another Star Trek movie. No, it really is, it's the 'Wrath of Khan' all over again, with just a few new twists and turns to make it seem like it's doing something new. There seems to be no clear focus half of the time as the movie comes closer to it's climax, until suddenly it reaches it's third act and quickly rushes through it and just stops. The pacing could have been fixed greatly in this movie.

Spoiler Alert! Why are many villains in movies these days planning to be caught by our heroes halfway through the movie? I remember back in 2008 when that was actually clever when 'The Dark Knight' used that to its advantage. Now it's just overly used, becoming almost a cliche after only a few years.

With all this that I have said, you're probably expecting me to give 'Into Darkness' a really bad rating, right? Actually, no. I'm still giving it a fair, decent rating. Why? Because it really was fun and entertaining. When you look past all the flaws and, as Mr. Spock would put it, "illogical" scenarios, there is a lot of creativity here in the roller-coaster style action and stunningly visual imagery. There is a clever set decoration in one particular scene where a Starfleet commander has a table in his office with models of spaceships throughout the years lined up in one long row, starting with the space race of the 1960's to the current, present 'star date', which is a few hundred years into the future. The actors give very good performances for their characters, keeping them interesting enough, with the little development they have. And once again, the show stealer here is the villian, played by Benedict Cumberbatch. Reaching 'Joker' status (again from 'The Dark Knight'), Cumberbatch's performance leaves the greatest impact upon this movie, making you want more from him when he is not on screen.

My final verdict would be 'Star Trek Into Darkness' is a fun, yet average, matinee feature you may like to check out, sometime before it leaves the giant screen. As for me, it's not really anything special I can picture myself watching again in the near future.

My Rating: 2.5 / 4

Review: 'To the Wonder'

The unique quality of Terrence Malick is his uncanny, yet great, ability to make you observe the simplest things in life, the things we all take for granted, and turn them into something we have never seen or noticed before. Of all of Malick's films, from his debut with 'Badlands' (1973) to this film, 'To the Wonder' just might possibly be the most "Malick-y" film he has ever made. That's saying a lot, considering Malick's previous film 'The Tree of Life'. You really have to be in the right mood to watch this film.

Being possibly his least interesting film to date, it is still nowhere near being a bad film at all. It's a continuation of 'The Tree of Life' in a sense. The atmosphere it creates, along with the mood, characters, situations and visuals: They're all on a similar scale. That can both be bad and good. Though it seems somewhat pretentious and occasionally repetitive, in a world where we are so often force fed everything we see and touch, it's refreshing to escape once in a while, take a deep breath and relax. If it still has even the smallest bit of power to make you walk out of the theatre and view the outside world in a new light, then there's no doubt something good to be recognized in here. While watching this movie a thought came to my mind which was what if Malick's intention is not only to teach his audience a lesson on life, but also his own actors and crew.

Like Malick's last couple of works, there is no basic plot or story-line in the film. What it is is a journey and observation of the lives of these particular people at this particular time in their lives. We are shown how they deal with the situations they are in: how they deal with love towards each other, how they despise one another, betray one another and forgive one another. Sometimes it's a continuous cycle. It becomes so rooted in our own minds that we begin to think about or own relationships, or the relationships of others, and how we can better strengthen and perfect them as best as we can. That feels like the work of a true visionary right there.

I feel like if Terrence Malick were alive in the years of silent cinema, he would have been the perfect man for the job. He would have been an excellent silent filmmaker. Malick's narrative has certainly changed a bit in his last few films, being more deep and philosophical than ever before. It even gets to the point where it feels like you're dreaming, and in a good way.

To give a Terrence Malick film a poor rating, even one of his below average films, would be almost unforgivable in my opinion. Each one of his works has a real deep, great passion and effort. Watching one of his films is like watching (and listening) to a symphony in a concert hall. To simply let you experience something for what it truly is, without romanticizing it, you have to respect that.

My rating: 3 / 4

Review: 'Iron Man 3'

Welcome to my review for 'Iron Man 3', or as Tony Stark puts it, 'A Few Tricks and a Cheesy One-Liner'. That's the Tony Stark personality we know, and that's the Tony Stark you get in this movie, but with at least a few new features. That's not including his suit and gadgetry.

I know I'm almost a week late with this, but what can I say? I'm not saying I'm not a fan of Iron Man, because I am. I'm just not the biggest fan, to put it mildly. It's almost pointless for me to talk about this film because, odds are, almost half the world's seen it by now. But I wouldn't be writing this now if I didn't have something to say about it.

In a nutshell, I did enjoy the movie. I liked it almost as much as the first movie, which I thought was a good flick. I also liked this one a lot more than the second movie, which was exciting but just too goofy. This is one of those "three-quels" that doesn't suck. The things I liked about it were that they at least tried to make this cocky, ego-maniacal character... less of a cocky, ego-maniacal character. The thing is, this is supposed to take place after the events that occurred in 'The Avengers', and Tony is experiencing some fairly severe incidents of anxiety/panic attacks. Most likely, these anxiety attacks are subject of his experience in New York.

SPOILER ALERT: The sad thing, for me, is these anxiety attacks in the film really don't have a decent resolution. Each attack keeps building up to something that you expect to be big, and it never happens. They're just simply shrugged to the side. Just giving a character a flaw isn't enough to pass as a relatable characteristic, you need a purpose for it and a reason for him to overcome that weakness. It's like saying Bruce Wayne decided to become Batman because he was just bored one day and wanted to fight criminals. Not very engaging. At least, that's what I thought.

I was expecting the sort of 'rise and fall, and rise again' story from this movie. You do get that a little bit, but it's not as emphasized as it should have been. I do think that the villain was decent. It might even be the best villain in the Iron Man series, and I'll leave it at that.

The rest of the movie, it's just your basic action/adventure flick. But thankfully, it's a fun one. It's not on the same level of cleverness and fun as 'The Avengers' was, but it was still fun.

My rating: 3 / 4

Review: 'Mud'

Having seen all of Jeff Nichol's films now, from 'Shotgun Stories', 'Take Shelter' and now 'Mud', I have a strong feeling that this guy is going to become one of the next big auteur directors. As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing wrong with that at all. I look forward to more of his work.

In Arkansas, two young boys are out and about one day when they find a boat in a tree on an island housing a man who goes by the name of Mud (Matthew McConaughey). Mud claims he's waiting for his girlfriend (Reese Witherspoon) so that they can run away together. The two boys decide to help Mud with his mission. But one day, they discover that Mud is a wanted man. Despite the shocking news, the boys continue to help him anyway. How long they can evade the law is anyone's guess.

Many crime dramas these days seem to forget that what makes emotion and thrills flow from it's viewers is the pacing and characters, along with the situations they're in. It's not about the suspense, shock-value or violence. Those things have a tendency to get in the way, with this particular genre. But this film knows better. This is not only a good character study, but it's also a coming of age story. In many respects, this is the young boy Ellis's story, and how he dealt with this one particular incident at this particular point in his life.

To not sound too sappy, there is deep symbolism in here as Mud himself is almost a mirror image of the type of man young Ellis could become if he doesn't shape up and pull himself together. Easier said than done, Ellis isn't doing too well, seeing as how his parents contemplate divorce. And as that happens, Ellis befriends a girl who could be for him, but just maybe he's thinking too far ahead. That's one of the main things I loved about the film, how Mud becomes a sort of father figure to Ellis in a way that his real father never has been. Throughout their bonding, Ellis is taught the true meaning of friendship, respect, loyalty and, yes, even love. Surprisingly, there are many heartwarming scenes in this movie and they also don't feel too forced upon you as well. They're just genuine that way.

I was deeply admiring this film and how it was slowly unraveling things, one after the other. Unfortunately, once it got through to the middle of the third act, that's when things start turning from believable and unique to just conventional, hollywood crime thriller status. It's a bit of a big disappointment on that front and brings the film down a couple notches. But not by much. If there is one more thing I would have to criticize about 'Mud', it would be the fact on how there are many things introduced and brought to our attention throughout the course of the film, almost promising a full resolution in the end. Many, if not most of them, don't happen. It's like those scenes and moments were strictly there as nothing but filler for the running time.

I liked this film better than 'Shotgun Stories', but it's nowhere near the greatness of 'Take Shelter', which I deeply adored. There's nothing to hate here though, and that's just grand. It's new filmmakers like Jeff Nichol's that help reimburse my faith in the future of movies.

My rating: 3 / 4